Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled June 25, 2025

Grote v. Medminder Systems, Inc.

Judge
James Oetken
Docket
1:24-cv-06186
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
FlsaCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Grote v. Medminder Systems, Inc., Judge Oetken approved the parties’ FLSA settlement and dismissed the case with prejudice.

Who this affects

John Grote and Medminder Systems, Inc., along with the other defendants listed in the case caption, are affected by the approved settlement and dismissal with prejudice.

What happened

In Grote v. Medminder Systems, Inc., the parties told the court they had reached a settlement resolving John Grote’s Fair Labor Standards Act and related state-law claims. The proposed settlement totaled $220,000, with $76,751.22 allocated to attorney fees and costs.

The court reviewed the proposed settlement and found it fair and reasonable. It approved the settlement and dismissed the case with prejudice, meaning the case was ended and could not be brought again.

Judge James Oetken ordered that the court would keep jurisdiction only to resolve disputes arising from the settlement agreement and settlement of the action. He also directed the Clerk of Court to close the case.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Grote v. Medminder Systems, Inc. · No. 1:24-cv-06186
Judge
James Oetken
Date
June 25, 2025

Background

The court was notified that the parties had reached a settlement in this Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) case. They submitted a proposed settlement for the court’s approval. The settlement covered John Grote’s FLSA and related state-law claims and provided for a total payment of $220,000. Of that amount, $76,751.22 was to be collected for attorney fees and costs.

Court’s Analysis

The court reviewed the proposed settlement under Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc., and found that its terms were fair and reasonable.

Ruling

The court approved the proposed settlement at ECF No. 35 and dismissed the case with prejudice. It retained jurisdiction solely to resolve disputes arising from the settlement agreement and the settlement of the action. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the case.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.